FORCE REQUIREMENTS AND SOIL DISRUPTION OF STRAIGHT

AND BENTLEG SUBSOILERS FOR CONSERVATION

TILLAGE SYSTEMS
R. L. Raper

ABSTRACT. In conservation tillage systems, belowground soil disruption should be maximized while aboveground disruption
should be minimized. To assist in choosing the best shank for strip-tillage systems, comparisons among several shanks
commonly used to provide in-row subsoiling prior to planting in conservation systems were made. A three-dimensional
dynamometer measured draft, vertical, and side forces for the experiments, which were conducted in the USDA-ARS National
Soil Dynamics Laboratory soil bins in Auburn, Alabama. A portable tillage profiler measured both above- and belowground
soil disruption. Two parameters, spoil resistance index and trench specific resistance, were developed from the data to assess
draft force, aboveground soil disruption and belowground soil disruption. Based on these selection criteria, the two best
shanks for conservation tillage systems were the Bigham Brothers Paratill shank and the Worksaver Terramax shank, both
of which were bentleg shanks.
Keywords. Subsoiling, Tillage, Soil compaction, Draft force, Vertical force, Bentleg, Shanks.

M
any producers use conservation tillage systems
to maximize amounts of crop residue on the soil
surface. However, some farmers report that
yields may not be sustainable and attribute this
to soil compaction (Raper et al., 2000b; Raper et al., 2000a;
Schwab et al., 2002). In the Southeastern United States, many
producers must use a deep tillage system to ameliorate com-
pacted soil profiles (Campbell et al., 1974; Garner et al.,
1987). Subsoiling, however, can bury surface residue and re-
duce the benefits of conservation tillage.
Strip tillage was developed as one solution to this
problem. In this cropping system, a cover crop often is grown
during the winter months. Prior to spring planting, subsoiling
is conducted such that it disturbs only a limited area directly
under the row. This in-row subsoiling process leaves most of
the crop residue in place, thus improving infiltration,
increasing soil moisture, reducing compaction and soil
erosion (Mullins et al., 1992; Raper et al., 1994, 1998; Reeves
and Mullins, 1995).
Strip-tillage seeks to leave maximum amounts of residue
in place and minimally disturb the soil surface. However,
belowground disruption is necessary to reduce the effects of
compaction on plant roots and allow them to grow to depths
adequate to obtain soil moisture. Several shanks are available
for use by producers to conduct strip-tillage. Most shanks are
straight and are angled with a slight forward incline to reduce
draft. The belowground disruption from these shanks is
Article was submitted for review in August 2004; approved for
publication by the Power & Machinery Division of ASAE in March 2005.
Presented at the 2002 ASAE Annual Meeting as Paper No. 021139.
The use of trade names or company names does not imply endorsement
by USDA-ARS. The author is Randy L. Raper, ASABE Member
Engineer, Agricultural Engineer, Lead Scientist, USDA-ARS National Soil
Dynamics Laboratory, 411 S. Donahue Drive, Auburn, Alabama 36832;
phone: 334-844-4654; fax: 334-887-8597; e-mail: rlraper@ars.usda.gov.
symmetric, with equal amounts of soil being disturbed on
either side of the shank. Another type of shank that is
commonly used in conservation tillage systems is the bentleg
shank (Pidgeon, 1982; Pidgeon, 1983). This shank disrupts
the soil in a slightly different manner than straight shanks,
with most of the disruption occurring on one side of the shank
(Spoor and Godwin, 1978). These shanks are thought to
require slightly more energy than straight shanks, but their
use is advised primarily because they leave the soil surface
relatively undisturbed (Anonymous, 1999). Some research,
however, has found that similar amounts of draft force are
required for bentleg shanks as for straight shanks (Khalilian
et al., 1988).
Producers have many choices when selecting shanks to
perform subsoiling operations. They may, however, not have
adequate scientific information to make an informed deci-
sion about which shank will leave their soil in the best
condition. Their desired soil condition would include
alleviating any belowground soil compaction, while leaving
the soil surface undisturbed. These aboveground and below-
ground soil disturbances should be performed with a
minimum of tillage energy and tillage forces.
Therefore, this experiment was conducted to determine:
S draft, vertical, and side forces of several common straight
and bentleg shanks,
S the amount of aboveground soil disruption caused by the
tillage process,
S the amount of belowground soil disruption caused by the
tillage process, and
S the shank (or shanks) with minimal draft force require-
ments, minimal aboveground soil disruption, and maxi-
mum belowground soil disruption.

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 21(5): 787−794 2005 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883−8542 787
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted in the soil bins at the
USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory in Auburn,
Alabama. Two Southeastern U.S. soils, a Norfolk sandy loam
soil (fine loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Kandiudults) and a
Decatur clay loam soil (fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic
Paleudults), were selected. Norfolk sandy loam soil is a
Coastal Plain soil commonly found in the Southeastern
United States and along the Atlantic Coast. Decatur clay
loam soil is a Tennessee Valley soil found in Northern
Alabama along the Tennessee River.
SOIL PREPARATION
The hardpan condition was formed in the indoor soil bins
to simulate a condition commonly found in the Southeastern
United States. This naturally occurring and sometime
traffic-induced hardpan, is found approximately 0.1 to 0.3 m
below the soil surface and is quite impervious to root growth,
particularly at low moisture levels. Root-limiting conditions
with cone index values exceeding 2 MPa are often found in
field conditions at these depths (Taylor and Gardner, 1963).
The hardpan condition was created using a moldboard plow
to laterally move the soil, followed by a rigid wheel which
packed the soil left exposed in the furrow. Approximately
0.2 m of the soil bin was packed at a time, with the procedure
repeated until the entire width of the bin had been traversed.
The surface soil was then bladed and leveled. Although,
variations did occur between bins, within a bin the same
depth of the hardpan was usually achieved.
SHANK DESCRIPTION
The shanks used for the experiment were from four
different manufacturers (table 1). Deere and Co. (Moline,
Ill.) manufactured a straight shank that was 32 mm thick and
was used on the John Deere 955 Row Crop Ripper (fig. 1).
Two different sizes of LASERRIPT Ripper Points were used
for this experiment. A wide point of 178 mm and a narrow
point of 69.9 mm were used. The shank with the wide point
was referred to as SDW (straight, Deere, wide point) and the
shank with the narrow point was referred to as SDN (straight,
Deere, narrow point). The three other straight shanks used in
this experiment were all manufactured by Kelley Manufac-
turing Co. (Tifton, Ga.; table 1, fig. 1). Two different shank
designs were used, one having an angle of 45° and the

Table 1. Description of shanks used in experiment.

Treatment Shank Shank Thickness
Key Type Manufacturer Common Name (mm)
SDW Straight Deere Straight standard with 178−mm L LASERRIPTM Ripper Points 32
SDN Straight Deere Straight standard with 69.9−mm LASERRIPTM Ripper Points 32
SK45W Straight Kelley Straight standard with 45° angle and wing 25
SK15W Straight Kelley Straight standard with 15° angle and wing 25
SK45 Straight Kelley Straight standard with 45° angle 25
BBP Bentleg Bigham Brothers ParatillTM 25
BBT Bentleg Bigham Brothers TerratillTM 25
BWT Bentleg Worksaver TerramaxTM 15

Figure 1. Straight shanks used in test. Shank codes are: SDW − straight shank, Deere, wide point; SDN − straight shank, Deere, narrow point; SK45W
− straight shank, Kelley, standard, wing; SK15W − straight shank, Kelley, modified, wing; SK45 − straight shank, Kelley, standard.

788 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

Figure 2. Bentleg shanks used in test. Shank codes are: BBP − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Paratill; BBT − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Terratill; BWT
− Bentleg, Worksaver, TerraMax.
other having an angle of 15° degrees. Each shank had the
same 25-mm width and used the same wear tips (44-mm
width). Replaceable wear plates attached to the front of the
shanks were used for the experiments because these would be
used in actual field use. In addition, a flexible wing was
included on the rear of the shanks, which was designed to
improve belowground soil disruption. This wing was not
fixed and was allowed to rotate upward or downward freely.
It was mounted 6.4 cm from the bottom edge of the point on
the rear of the 45° shank and 12.7 cm from the bottom edge
of the point on the rear of the 15° shank. These shanks were
referred to as SK45W (straight, Kelley, 45° angle shank,
wing), SK15W (straight, Kelley, 15° angle shank, wing), and
SK45 (straight, Kelley, 45° angle shank).
Three bentleg type shanks were included in the study
(fig. 2). Bigham Brothers (Lubbock, Tex.) manufactured two
25-mm thick shanks that were tested (table 1). One of these
shanks was referred to as the ParatillT shank and was
formerly manufactured by Howard Rotovator and ICI
(Harrison, 1988). This shank was bent 45° to one side and
with the leading edge rotated forward by 25°. Its forward
projection was 216 mm wide. The Paratill has a 57-mm wide
point. Bigham Brothers also made a slightly narrower version
of this shank and referred to it as the Terratillt. Its forward
projection was a narrower width of 127 mm. The Terratill has
a 76-mm wide point. These shanks were referred to as the
BBP (bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Paratill) and the BBT
(bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Terratill). The third bentleg
shank used in the study was manufactured by Worksaver
Company (Litchfield, Ill.) and was referred to as the
TerraMaxt (table 1). This shank was slightly thinner, at
15 mm, was rolled about a 0.43-m radius, and was rotated
forward by 15°. It was referred to as the BWT (bentleg,
Worksaver, TerraMax).
MEASUREMENTS
For the tests, the shanks were mounted on a three-dimen-
sional dynamometer, which has an overall draft load capacity
of 44 kN. Draft, vertical force, side force, speed, and depth
of operation were recorded at a sampling rate of 25 Hz during
each shank test. Speed for all tests was held constant at
0.45 m/s. Depth of operation was 0.33 m for all tests.
Four subsoiling runs were conducted side-by-side across
the width of the bin, with eight runs being conducted along
the length of the bin. This arrangement allowed all 32 runs to
be conducted in one bin. The approximate size of each plot
was 1.5 m wide × 5 m long. The spacing across the bin was
sufficient to ensure that disturbed soil resulting from a
Vol. 21(5): 787−794
previous tillage operation would not affect the next test. All
of the force values obtained from each run were averaged to
create one specific value per plot of draft, vertical force, and
side force.
Before the shank tests were carried out in each plot, a set
of five cone index measurements was acquired with a
multiple-probe recording penetrometer. This set of measure-
ments was taken with the five-cone index measurements
equally spaced at a 0.2-m interval across the soil, with the
middle measurement being directly in the path of the shank.
After the test , another set of five cone index measurements
was taken in close proximity to the original cone index
measurements.
Samples were collected in undisturbed regions of each
plot immediately after the conclusion of the experiment for
bulk density and moisture content determination. These
samples were obtained near the surface at a depth of 0 to 5 cm,
and in the hardpan. They were weighed and dried at 105°C
for 24 h to obtain averaged gravimetric water content and dry
bulk density.
After each set of tillage experiments was complete, a
portable tillage profiler [(Raper et al., 2004); fig. 3] was used
to determine the width and area of soil that was disturbed by
the tillage event in each plot. This measurement was referred
to as the ‘spoil.’ The disturbed soil was then manually
excavated from the trenched zone for each plot for approxi-
mately 1 m along the travel path to allow five independent
measurements to be made of the area of the subsoiled or
Figure 3. Portable tillage profiler consisting of a laser distance measuring
system, a linear actuator, and an aluminum frame. In this photograph, the
profiler is being used to measure the trench cross-sectional area.
789
trenched zone. This measurement was referred to as the DECATUR NORFOLK
‘trench.’ Care was taken to ensure that only soil loosened by 0
tillage was removed.
An index was created to assist in assessing differences due
to draft forces and spoil cross-sectional area. The index was 0.1
determined by simply multiplying these two parameters as

DEPTH,m
follows:
0.2
SRI = D × SCA (1)
where
0.3
SRI = spoil resistance index (kN × m2)
D = draft (kN)
SCA = spoil cross-sectional area (m2) 0.4
The advantage of using this parameter was that both 0 1 2 3 4
parameters used to compute it, draft and spoil cross-sectional CONE INDEX, MPa
area, were desired to be small. By multiplying them, trends Figure 4. Initial cone index profiles for the two soil types.
in the data were easier to see as SRI should be minimized for
the best results.
In an effort to understand the effects of draft force on DRAFT FORCE
trenched cross-sectional area, another relationship was Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
developed and considered these parameters. The trench
specific resistance was defined as: The straight shanks required higher tillage draft force
compared to the bentleg shanks. The SDN subsoiler shank
D required 9.25 kN, which was the largest draft force required,
TSR = (2)
TCA while the smallest draft force of 5.85 kN was measured for the
BBP shank (table 2).
where Several statistically significant paired comparisons were
TSR = trench specific resistance (kN/m2) also found. The SK45W shank required significantly reduced
D = draft (kN) draft force (7.77 kN) compared to the SK15W shank (8.99
TCA = trench cross-sectional area (m2) kN; P ≤ 0.015). This result indicates that the modified shank
Again it was advantageous for TSR to be small, because
this indicated small values of draft coupled with large values Table 2. Tillage forces for the Norfolk sandy
of belowground disruption. loam soil and the Decatur clay loam soil.[a]
Draft Force Vertical Force Side Force
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (kN) (kN) (kN)
Each soil bin was treated as a randomized complete block Norfolk sandy loam soil[b]
design with four replications and eight shank types. Pre- SDW 8.72 ac[c] 3.49 ab 0.48 bc
planned single degree of freedom contrasts and Fisher’s SDN 9.25 a 3.14 bcd 0.31 cd
protected least significant difference (LSD) were used for SK45W 7.77 cd 2.79 d 0.23 d
mean comparison. A probability level of 0.10 was assumed SK15W 8.99 a 3.17 abc 0.51 bc
to test the null hypothesis that no differences existed between SK45 8.02 bc 2.97 cd 0.43 cd
shanks in terms of the various parameters measured and/or BBP 5.85 f 3.55 a 0.68 b
developed. BBT 7.22 de 3.14 bcd 1.11 a
BWT 6.72 e 3.17 abc 0.49 bc
Decatur clay loam soil
SDW 13.14 a 3.77 b 0.52 cd
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SDN 11.58 abc 3.08 cd 0.53 cd
The gravimetric moisture content of the Norfolk soil was SK45W 12.79 ab 3.44 bcd 0.39 d
7.2% between depths of 0 to 5 cm and 8.8% in the hardpan. SK15W 12.29 ab 3.28 bcd 0.84 c
In the Decatur soil, the moisture content was 12.5% near the SK45 10.20 cd 3.54 bc 0.48 cd
surface and 13.6% in the hardpan. The dry bulk density in the BBP 10.15 cd 4.49 a 1.58 b
Norfolk soil was 1.73 Mg/m3 near the surface and BBT 11.08 bcd 3.75 b 2.10 a
1.94 Mg/m3 in the hardpan. In the Decatur soil, the dry bulk BWT 9.65 d 2.93 d 0.82 c
density was 1.46 Mg/m3 near the surface and 1.76 Mg/m3 in [a] Shaded zones indicate the statistically best shanks for each parameter.
the hardpan. [b] Treatment key:
The cone index values that were taken to quantify soil SDW − straight shank, Deere, wide point.
strength were shown in figure 4. The approximate depths of SDN − straight shank, Deere, narrow point.
SK45W − straight shank, Kelley, standard, wing.
the hardpan were at 0.10 m for the Norfolk sandy loam soil SK15W − straight shank, Kelley, modified, wing.
and 0.8 m for the Decatur clay loam soil. The 2-cm difference SK45 − straight shank, Kelley, standard.
was due to differences in soils and their interaction with BBP − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Paratill.
machinery. The magnitudes of cone index and the overall BBT − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Terratill.
BWT − Bentleg, Worksaver, TerraMax.
profiles are quite similar to actual field measurements [c] Letters indicate LSD statistical differences at the 0.10 level.
commonly found in these soil types.

790 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

angle for the Kelley straight shank required slightly more
tillage force.
The BBP shank required less tillage force (5.85 kN) than
the BBT shank (7.22 kN; P ≤ 0.007) or the BWT shank
(6.72 kN; P ≤ 0.074). This may indicate that the newer
bentleg designs may not be as efficient in minimizing force
as the Paratill for this soil type.
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
Increased draft forces were required for the Decatur clay
loam soil compared to the Norfolk sandy loam soil (table 2).
The maximum tillage force was found for the SDW shank
(13.14 kN) while the minimum force was for the BWT shank
(9.65 kN). Only a single one-way comparison was found to
be significantly different for this soil type, with the effect of
the wing causing increased tillage force for the SK45W shank
(12.79 kN) compared to the SK45 shank (10.20 kN; P ≤
0.021).
VERTICAL FORCE
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
All shanks generating a suction force with smaller values
were assumed to be the most desirable. Some suction was
desired as a method of keeping the shank inserted into the
soil, but large values could cause excessive penetration and
increased draft forces. The BBP shank required the largest
vertical force (3.55 kN) while the SK45W shank required the
least (2.78 kN; table 2). In this soil, the SK45W shank
required significantly smaller values of vertical forces
(2.78 kN) than did the SK15W shank (3.17 kN; P ≤ 0.090).
The decreased slope of the SK15W shank was probably
responsible for the increased amount of vertical force. The
BBP shank also required increased values of vertical force
(3.55 kN) compared to the BBT shank (3.14 kN; P ≤ 0.081),
probably because of the aggressiveness of the point.
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
In this soil type, the BBP shank required the maximum
vertical force (4.49 kN) with the minimum value required by
the BWT shank (2.93 kN; table 2). In regards to the one-way
comparisons, several significant differences were found. The
SDN shank required significantly reduced vertical force
(3.08 kN) compared to the SDW shank (3.77 kN; P v 0.037).
The increased width of the foot on this shank required
additional vertical force. The BBP shank required signifi-
cantly higher vertical force (4.49 kN) compared to either of
the other two bentleg shanks; BWT (2.93 kN; P v 0.001) or
BBT (3.75 kN; P v 0.027). The BWT shank also required
reduced vertical force than the BBT shank (P v 0.015).
SIDE FORCE
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
Even though the largest side forces for this soil type were
found with the BBT shank (1.11 kN) and the next largest for
the BBP shank (0.68 kN), it was somewhat surprising that
several of the straight shanks also required significant
amounts of side force (table 2). Properly designed bentleg
shanks have had this tendency minimized and were relatively
close (numerically) to straight shanks. Also, the below-
Vol. 21(5): 787−794
ground disturbance was fairly symmetrical for the bentleg
shanks. The SK45W shank had the minimum side force
(0.23 kN). The SK45W shank has reduced side force
compared to the SK15W shank (0.51 kN; P ≤ 0.034). The
BBT shank had elevated values of side force compared to
both of the other bentleg shanks; BWT (0.49 kN; P ≤ 0.001)
and BBP (0.68 kN; P ≤ 0.002).
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
The largest values of side force in the Decatur clay loam
soil were required by the BBT shank (2.10 kN) while the
minimum values were required by the SK45W shank
(0.39 kN; table 2). Increased shank angle required signifi-
cantly smaller values of side force for the SK45W shank
compared to the SK15W shank (0.84 kN; P ≤ 0.070). The
BBT shank had higher values of side force compared to the
other bentleg shanks; BWT (0.82 kN; P ≤ 0.001) or BBP
(1.58 kN; P ≤ 0.036). The BWT shank required reduced
values of side force compared to the BBP shank (P ≤ 0.004).
SPOIL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
Example graphs of the spoil and the trench are shown in
figure 5 for each of the shanks operating in the Norfolk sandy
loam soil. These graphs showed a great amount of variability
and it was difficult to draw conclusions without statistical
analysis. However, one observation noted was the symmetry
in spoil and trench area for the bentleg shanks. These shanks
were expected to disrupt the soil mostly on one side of the
shank, but the graphs clearly showed almost symmetrical
disruption on both sides of the shanks. This observation was
proven by a statistical comparison of the trenched area in the
Norfolk sandy loam soil which found no difference between
shanks (data not shown). Despite the different appearance
and construction of the shanks, similar amounts of disruption
were found on each side of a vertical line drawn from the
deepest point. A hypothesis that we considered was that the
bentleg shanks were properly designed with a side angle of
45°. This 45° angle was similar to the angle that straight
shanks created on either side of the shank in these soils. In
different soil types or stratified soil conditions, this perfor-
mance could vary.
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
Similar results were found for the cross-sectional area for
the Norfolk sandy loam as for the width of the spoil (table 3).
The maximum amount measured with the portable tillage
profiler was 43.5 × 10−3 m2 for the SDW shank, and the
minimum amount was 28.7 × 10−3 m2 for the BWT shank. It
was thought that the increased width of the point on the SDW
shank caused the statistically significant difference to be
found compared to the SDN shank (35.9 × 10−3 m2; P ≤
0.020). The BWT shank had a significantly reduced spoil
cross-sectional area compared to the BBT shank (34.8 × 10−3
m2; P ≤ 0.061).
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
The maximum spoil cross-sectional area for this soil type
was found for the SDW shank (53.1 × 10−3 m2) with the
minimum values for the BBP shank (36.3 × 10−3 m2;
791
 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1

DEPTH(m)
0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−0.2 −0.2
−0.3 −0.3
SDN SDW
−0.4 −0.4
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1

DEPTH(m)
0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−0.2 −0.2
−0.3 −0.3
SK45W SK15W
−0.4 −0.4
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
DEPTH(m)

0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−0.2 −0.2
−0.3 −0.3
SK45 BBP
−0.4 −0.4
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
DEPTH(m)

0 0
−0.1 −0.1
−0.2 −0.2
−0.3 −0.3
BBT BWT
−0.4 −0.4
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4
HORIZONTAL(m) HORIZONTAL(m)
Figure 5. Example spoil and trench graphs as measured with the portable tillage profiler for the Norfolk sandy loam soil.

table 3). It was thought that the increased point width of the
SDW shank caused increased spoil cross-sectional area
compared to the SDN shank (46.7 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.018). The
wing mounted on the SK45W shank (45.0 × 10−3 m2)
probably caused spoil cross-sectional area for this shank
compared to the SK45 shank (39.9 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.052). The
BBP shank produced a reduced spoil cross-sectional area
compared to the BBT shank (41.6 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.043).
TRENCH CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
The maximum amount of trench cross-sectional area was
found with the SDW shank (105.7 × 10−3 m2; table 3) while
the minimum amount was found with the SK45W shank
(74.6 × 10−3 m2). The only statistically significant difference
was found between the SDW shank and the SDN shank
(74.8 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.004).
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
The greatest trench cross-sectional area was found for the
SDW shank (127.8 × 10−3 m2) while the minimum was with
the SK15W shank (92.5 × 10−3 m2; table 3). It was thought
that the wide point on the SDW shank disturbed a larger zone
than the SDN shank (112.2 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.097). It was also
thought that the wing on the SK45W shank (110.9 × 10−3 m2)
increased values of trench cross-sectional area compared to
the SK45 shank (94.6 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.085), which did not
have the wing. The SK45W shank had reduced trench
cross-sectional area compared to the SK15W shank
(92.5 × 10−3 m2; P ≤ 0.054) perhaps due to the effect of the
increased angle.
SPOIL RESISTANCE INDEX
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
The maximum SRI was calculated for the SDW shank
(0.379 kN × m2) and the minimum with the BBP shank
(0.176 kN × m2; table 3). A statistically significant difference
was found between the SDW shank and the SDN shank
(0.379 kN × m2; P ≤ 0.093). The BBT shank (0.249 kN × m2)
had a statistically higher SRI than the other bentleg shanks:
the BWT shank (0.194 kN × m2; P ≤ 0.072) or the BBP shank
(0.176 kN × m2; P ≤ 0.023).
Two bentleg shanks, BBP or BWT, seemed to be
exceptional at requiring minimal draft while causing mini-
mal soil surface disruption in this soil type. Either of these
shanks should be able to work in this soil type and leave
maximum amounts of residue on the soil surface, while
requiring lower amounts of tillage energy.
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
The maximum SRI in the Decatur soil was 0.696 kN × m2
for the SDW shank, while the minimum value was 0.368 kN

792 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 Table 3. Soil disruption parameters for the Norfolk sandy loam soil and the Decatur clay loam soil.
Spoil Trench
Spoil Cross-Sectional Spoil Trench Cross-Sectional Trench Specific
Width[a] Area Resistance Index Width Area Resistance
(m) (m2 × 10−3) (kN ⋅ m2) (m) (m2 × 10−3) (kN / m2)
Norfolk sandy loam soil[b]
SDW 0.717 a 43.5 a 0.379 a 0.548 105.7 a 83.5 cde
SDN 0.568 bc 35.9 b 0.319 b 0.397 74.8 b 126.7 a
SK45W 0.590 bc 32.4 bc 0.253 c 0.453 74.6 b 106.1 abc
SK15W 0.594 bc 33.3 bc 0.293 bc 0.494 88.5 b 106.9 ab
SK45 0.654 ab 36.0 b 0.289 bc 0.510 82.4 b 100.2 bcd
BBP 0.584 bc 30.0 c 0.176 d 0.520 88.0 b 66.8 e
BBT 0.653 ab 34.8 b 0.249 c 0.503 88.1 b 82.6 de
BWT 0.553 c 28.8 c 0.194 d 0.470 80.3 b 85.0 bcde
Decatur clay loam soil
SDW 0.753 a 53.1 a 0.696 a 0.593 127.8 a 102.3 bcd
SDN 0.691 bcd 46.7 b 0.542 bc 0.576 112.2 b 105.0 bc
SK45W 0.664 def 45.0 bc 0.574 b 0.591 110.9 bc 117.0 b
SK15W 0.645 ef 42.7 bcd 0.523 bc 0.516 92.5 d 133.4 a
SK45 0.631 f 39.9 de 0.409 de 0.523 94.6 d 108.8 bc
BBP 0.733 ab 36.3 e 0.368 e 0.515 102.8 bcd 98.8 cd
BBT 0.711 abc 41.6 cd 0.466 cd 0.528 95.8 cd 115.5 b
BWT 0.685 cde 39.7 de 0.382 de 0.576 107.5 bcd 89.7 d
[a] Shaded zones indicate the statistically best shanks for each parameter.
[b] Treatment key:
SDW − straight shank, Deere, wide point.
SDN − straight shank, Deere, narrow point.
SK45W − straight shank, Kelley, standard, wing.
SK15W − straight shank, Kelley, modified, wing.
SK45 − straight shank, Kelley, standard.
BBP − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Paratill.
BBT − Bentleg, Bigham Brothers, Terratill.
BWT − Bentleg, Worksaver, TerraMax.

× m2 for the BBP shank (table 3). These values were almost
twice that measured in the Norfolk soil, mostly because of
increased draft energy requirements. The SDW shank had a
statistically higher SRI than the SDN shank (0.542 kN × m2;
P ≤ 0.012). The wing also caused the SK45W shank
(0.574 kN × m2) to have a higher value than the SK45 shank
(0.409 kN × m2; P ≤ 0.008). Lastly, the BBP had shank-re-
duced values of SRI compared to the BBT shank (0.466 kN
× m2; P ≤ 0.098).
Again, two bentleg shanks, BBP or BWT, seemed to
function exceptionally well as did one of the straight shanks,
SK45. Minimal power requirements as well as small amounts
of spoil should allow any of these three shanks to be
acceptable for this soil type.
TRENCH SPECIFIC RESISTANCE
Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil
The maximum TSR was calculated for the SDN shank
(12.7 kN/m2) and this arose primarily because of its large
draft force requirement and its relatively small trench
cross-sectional area (table 3). The minimum value was found
with the BBP shank (6.68 kN/m2). This came about because
it had minimal values of draft and large values of trench
cross-sectional area. The only one-way significant difference
was found between the two shanks: SDN (12.7 kN/m2) and
SDW (8.3 kN/m2; P ≤ 0.004).
Statistically similar values were found for the BBP, BBT,
SDW, and the BWT shanks. Either of four shanks would
satisfy the requirement of having minimal values for trench
specific resistance for this soil type.
Decatur Clay Loam Soil
The largest values of TSR were found for the SK15W
shank (13.3 kN/m2) with the smallest values for the BWT
shank (9.0 kN/m2; table 3). The shank angle appeared to
increase the values of TSR for the SK15W shank, compared
to the SK45W shank (11.7 kN/m2; P ≤ 0.076). The BBT shank
(11.6 kN/m2) also had increased values of TSR compared to
the other bentleg shanks: BWT shank (P ≤ 0.008) and BBP
shank (9.88 kN/m2; P ≤ 0.071).
Three shanks had statistically similar values of TSR for
the Decatur clay loam soil: the BWT, BBP, and SDW shanks.
These three shanks also had the lowest TSR for the Norfolk
sandy loam soil. If maximum amounts of belowground soil
disruption were needed without consideration for spoil
cross-sectional areas, these three shanks would be good
candidates for subsoiling.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
When both aboveground and belowground disruptions
were considered, the two shanks that performed the best were
the BBP shank and BWT shank. The BBP shank had the
lowest SRI for both soil types and one of the two lowest
values for TSR. Statistically similar results were also found
for the BWT shank. Either of these two shanks should be very
useful in conservation tillage systems where draft force and
aboveground soil disruption should be minimized and
belowground soil disruption should be maximized.
Even though soil bin experiments were limited in their
scope compared to actual field experiments, important trends

Vol. 21(5): 787−794 793

were detected that provided engineers with enhanced
capabilities to design better field equipment. Differences
found in this experiment from actual field conditions
included soil condition and speed of operation. Because the
soil used in the soil bin experiment did not contain any
organic material and was not stratified with depth, the
magnitude of the results obviously differed from actual field
results. However, the trends in the data were similar and
allowed important differences in forces and disruption to be
found.
Also, the speed of operation for soil bin experiments was
typically slower than found in actual field experiments.
Speed obviously affects aboveground and belowground
disruption. However, increased speed should result in
increased disruption for all implements and still result in
significant differences being found.
The conclusions that were drawn from this experiment
were:
S The bentleg shanks had the lowest draft requirements as
compared to the straight shanks for both soil types. Also
requiring small amounts of draft was the SK45 straight
shank.
S The bentleg shanks were found to generate more side force
than the straight shanks.
S The BBP and BWT shanks had the lowest aboveground
soil disruption.
S The SDW shank had the largest belowground soil disrup-
tion.
S Using the two parameters defined in this article, spoil re-
sistance index and trench specific resistance, enables two
shanks to stand out in their ability to require minimal draft
force and aboveground soil disruption while providing
maximum belowground soil disruption. The two best
shanks for conservation tillage systems based on these
selection criteria were the BBP shank and the BWT shank.
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1999. Para-tilling saves money, increases organic
matter. Cotton Farming March: 22-23.
Campbell, R. B., D. C. Reicosky, and C. W. Doty. 1974. Physical
properties and tillage of Paleudlts in the southeastern Coastal
Plains. J. Soil Water Cons. 29(September-October): 220-224.
794
Garner, T. H., W. R. Reynolds, H. L. Musen, G. E. Miles, J. W.
Davis, D. Wolf, and U. M. Peiper. 1987. Energy requirement for
subsoiling coastal plain soils. Transactions of the ASAE
30(2): 343-349.
Harrison, H. P. 1988. Soil reacting forces for a bentleg plow.
Transactions of the ASAE 31(1): 47-51.
Khalilian, A., T. H. Garner, H. L. Musen, R. B. Dodd, and S. A.
Hale. 1988. Energy for conservation tillage in Coastal Plain
soils. Transactions of the ASAE 31(5): 1333-1337.
Mullins, G. L., D. W. Reeves, C. H. Burmester, and H. H. Bryant.
1992. Effect of subsoiling and the deep placement of K on root
growth and soil water depletion by cotton. In Proc. Beltwide
Cotton Production Research Conf., 1134-1138. Nashville,
Tenn.: National Cotton Council.
Pidgeon, J. D. 1982. ’Paraplow’ - A rational approach to soil
management. In Proc. 9th Conf. Int. Soil Tillage Res. Org.,
633-638. Osijek, Yugoslavia: ISTRO.
Pidgeon, J. D. 1983. Paraplow - A new approach to soil loosening.
ASAE Paper 832136. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Raper, R. L., D. W. Reeves, E. Burt, and H. A. Torbert. 1994.
Conservation tillage and traffic effects on soil condition.
Transactions of the ASAE 37(3): 763-768.
Raper, R. L., D. W. Reeves, and E. Burt. 1998. Using in-row
subsoiling to minimize soil compaction caused by traffic.
J. Cotton Sci. 2(3): 130-135.
Raper, R. L., D. W. Reeves, C. H. Burmester, and E. B. Schwab.
2000a. Tillage depth, tillage timing, and cover crop effects on
cotton yield, soil strength, and tillage energy requirements.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16(4): 379-385.
Raper, R. L., D. W. Reeves, E. B. Schwab, and C. H. Burmester.
2000b. Reducing soil compaction of Tennessee Valley soils in
conservation tillage systems. J. Cotton Sci. 4(2): 84-90.
Raper, R. L., T. E. Grift, and M. Z. Tekeste. 2004. A portable tillage
profiler for measuring subsoiling disruption. Transactions of
ASAE 47(1): 23-27.
Reeves, D. W., and G. L. Mullins. 1995. Subsoiling and potassium
placement effects on water relations and yield of cotton. Agron.
J. 87: 847-852.
Schwab, E. B., D. W. Reeves, C. H. Burmester, and R. L. Raper.
2002. Conservation tillage systems for cotton grown on a silt
loam soil in the Tennessee Valley. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
66(2): 569-577.
Spoor, G., and R. J. Godwin. 1978. An experimental investigation
into the deep loosening of soil by rigid tines. J. Ag. Eng. Res.
23: 243-258.
Taylor, H. M., and H. R. Gardner. 1963. Penetration of cotton
seedling taproots as influenced by bulk density, moisture
content, and strength of soil. Soil Sci. 96(3): 153-156.
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE